There are more people with below average income than above average income....... There are simply more poor people than rich people.

Have you ever asked yourself why, cassowary?

No, of course not! For you to do so would probably be tantamount to questioning the natural order of things as ordained by God. To do that would be to commit blasphemy?

You know: John Calvin's old blather about the elect few (among whom you obviously count yourself) and the damned many (and you obviously see supporters of left political parties worldwide as being just that, don't you Cass?).

(You see, I can read you like a book.)

Well, not being a Calvinist believer in predestination myself I see things rather differently. I suggest that in Venezuela those large majority of below average income people (i.e. the desperately poor of the country) probably had good reason to be discontented with the raw deal they were getting beforehand or else they would never have had any incentive to elect Chavez.

Democratic elections? Well, thank goodness the masses had that means at their disposal to try and regress their grievances; or else they would have had to resort to something much more violent: like a Bolshevik style revolutionary upheaval.

Events in Venezuela have proven me correct. It was a democracy before. Then they voted in a Socialist, Hugo Chavez. Now it is bankrupt and a dictatorship.

There are more people with below average income than above average income. This assures the success of leftist parties in a one man one vote system. There are simply more poor people than rich people.

The left promises redistributive policies. This leads to bankruptcy and a dictatorship ensues. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.

We need to reform democracy in order to save it from committing suicide.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ___ John Adams

Your theisi is far from universally proved.

And your reforms simply a cloak for dictatorship.

Do you know what my proposed reforms are?

Yes, you want a democracy that never goes into deficit.

More likely a democracy ruled by the chosen few.

Well, we have been through that mill already - if you will recall how all of today's democracies abiding by the one man (and one woman) voting system; over 150 years ago used a property (and/or income) qualification to define who could vote - and only property owning men, not women, were allowed to vote. It was justified by the supposition that only wealthy property owners could act like responsible citizens (and perish the thought that women, even wealthy property-owning women, could be responsible citizens).

Cassowary seems to envision a "democracy" in which likewise only wealthy businessmen get to vote based upon the same false supposition. It astonishes me how anyone, apparently out of profound historical ignorance, could be that reactionary.

Events in Venezuela have proven me correct. It was a democracy before. Then they voted in a Socialist, Hugo Chavez. Now it is bankrupt and a dictatorship.

There are more people with below average income than above average income. This assures the success of leftist parties in a one man one vote system. There are simply more poor people than rich people.

The left promises redistributive policies. This leads to bankruptcy and a dictatorship ensues. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.

We need to reform democracy in order to save it from committing suicide.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ___ John Adams

Your theisi is far from universally proved.

And your reforms simply a cloak for dictatorship.

Do you know what my proposed reforms are?

Yes, you want a democracy that never goes into deficit.

More likely a democracy ruled by the chosen few.

Well, we have been through that mill already - if you will recall how all of today's democracies abiding by the one man (and one woman) voting system; over 150 years ago used a property (and/or income) qualification to define who could vote - and only property owning men, not women, were allowed to vote. It was justified by the supposition that only wealthy property owners could act like responsible citizens (and perish the thought that women, even wealthy property-owning women, could be responsible citizens).

Cassowary seems to envision a "democracy" in which likewise only wealthy businessmen get to vote based upon the same false supposition. It astonishes me how anyone, apparently out of profound historical ignorance, could be that reactionary.

I did not propose that in my book. What I suggested was that Votes for Senators be based in the amount of taxes each voter pays. In other words, those who pay more taxes get more votes. The voting rules for the lower House of Representatives remain the same
, ie one man one vote.

Events in Venezuela have proven me correct. It was a democracy before. Then they voted in a Socialist, Hugo Chavez. Now it is bankrupt and a dictatorship.

There are more people with below average income than above average income. This assures the success of leftist parties in a one man one vote system. There are simply more poor people than rich people.

The left promises redistributive policies. This leads to bankruptcy and a dictatorship ensues. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.

We need to reform democracy in order to save it from committing suicide.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ___ John Adams

Your theisi is far from universally proved.

And your reforms simply a cloak for dictatorship.

Do you know what my proposed reforms are?

Yes, you want a democracy that never goes into deficit.

More likely a democracy ruled by the chosen few.

Well, we have been through that mill already - if you will recall how all of today's democracies abiding by the one man (and one woman) voting system; over 150 years ago used a property (and/or income) qualification to define who could vote - and only property owning men, not women, were allowed to vote. It was justified by the supposition that only wealthy property owners could act like responsible citizens (and perish the thought that women, even wealthy property-owning women, could be responsible citizens).

Cassowary seems to envision a "democracy" in which likewise only wealthy businessmen get to vote based upon the same false supposition. It astonishes me how anyone, apparently out of profound historical ignorance, could be that reactionary.

Again it's how they do it in Singapore and the chickens of tyranny have yet to come home to roost, so Cass doesn't (want to) see the problem.

I figure this generation of Lees will be the last before Singapore slides into full-on corrupt dictatorship.

Events in Venezuela have proven me correct. It was a democracy before. Then they voted in a Socialist, Hugo Chavez. Now it is bankrupt and a dictatorship.

There are more people with below average income than above average income. This assures the success of leftist parties in a one man one vote system. There are simply more poor people than rich people.

The left promises redistributive policies. This leads to bankruptcy and a dictatorship ensues. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.

We need to reform democracy in order to save it from committing suicide.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” ___ John Adams

Your theisi is far from universally proved.

And your reforms simply a cloak for dictatorship.

Do you know what my proposed reforms are?

Yes, you want a democracy that never goes into deficit.

More likely a democracy ruled by the chosen few.

Well, we have been through that mill already - if you will recall how all of today's democracies abiding by the one man (and one woman) voting system; over 150 years ago used a property (and/or income) qualification to define who could vote - and only property owning men, not women, were allowed to vote. It was justified by the supposition that only wealthy property owners could act like responsible citizens (and perish the thought that women, even wealthy property-owning women, could be responsible citizens).

Cassowary seems to envision a "democracy" in which likewise only wealthy businessmen get to vote based upon the same false supposition. It astonishes me how anyone, apparently out of profound historical ignorance, could be that reactionary.

Again it's how they do it in Singapore and the chickens of tyranny have yet to come home to roost, so Cass doesn't (want to) see the problem.

I figure this generation of Lees will be the last before Singapore slides into full-on corrupt dictatorship.